TerraDave
5ever, or until 2024
It makes sense.
But is it "core D&D" if the math has always gone up....
In any case, the quote from the WotC chat was:
Monte said:
Which could be interesting.
DDXP Begins Today!
It makes sense.
But is it "core D&D" if the math has always gone up....
In any case, the quote from the WotC chat was:
Which could be interesting.
Falstaff
First Post
You know, you're right. I don't know what I was expecting to be honest. You know, WotC is concerned with making a D&D that "feels" like D&D. There's only one thing they need to do to accomplish that. They don't need playtest. They simply need to read Gary Gygax's D&D and make a game that evokes all the "feel" of his books.
Nebulous
Legend
This is very true. You can't fault 5e for not merging two radically different styles of play, it's apples and oranges. I think best case scenario is that 5e will be able to loosely replicate any of the old editions, with a splash of new 5e paint, and DMs and players with similar interests will naturally gravitate toward the kind of game they want to play.
I think that there are two things that may be getting mixed up together here. WotC said that the players would be able to mix styles. That is, you could have players who are playing basic D&D-style characters at the same table as characters who are playing 3.X-style characters.
If what I read via the tweets are correct, the DM would have to do no extra planning for that combination of characters.
However, the DM/Players will *always* have to come to some sort of consensus on the style of game that they are playing? Minis/maps or verbal descriptions only? Lots of combat, more exploration or mostly social-style gaming? Now, according to the tweets, the system will be such that they will be able to shift from one style of play to another from session to session.
However, I am quite certain that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to try to *fairly* DM both people who are playing a highly tactical combat-style of RP with a loosey-goosey verbal description of what is going on-style of combat *in the same encounter*. You could probably switch from encounter to encounter though. Would all depend on players/DM preferences.
I worked with a guy in college on a system that used this same principal. The initial reason was to make it so even 1st level characters had a chance against say 10th level characters. So a low level character is somewhat undifferentiated from the baseline for his class where as a high level character is much more unique/specific but not necessarily statistically much superior. He's just able to do things that he prefers better, and the things he doesn't prefer he might be actually worse in.
I would love to see this kind of concept applied to D&D.
How are they defining "roleplay" such that it excludes exploration and combat? Do they mean social interaction?
Phaezen
First Post
Remathilis
Legend
Well, warlord's back.
Woot!
